Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

There will be all kind of arguments (at least by my side), but the ammount of them is too big, I just preffer to go point by point, so everyone reads, otherwise you would be reading a whole book in one post and nobody wants that right?

Wow, are you ever arrogant. I'd just love to read this 'whole book' that you claim. And believe me when I say that there would be a whole book, and more so, for the arguments supporting your side. Enough books to fill the shelves of the world's largest library.

But these books aint gonna be Shakespeare in quality. They'd be more like what would happen if Dr. Suess and Walt Disney sat down and wrote books together, with William Hannah and Joseph Barbera proof reading, and Mel Blanc being that goofball making cool voices dictating what was written into some stone-aged dictaphone.

The reason for so many arguments 'supporting' your side of the debate is because the supporters of your side of the debate are just good at coming up with lame excuses to when your side is faced with a sound rebuttal. Excuses like special pleading, god of the gaps, irreducible complexity, and a dozen non-sequiturs for equal measure.

Whenever your side is faced with a rebuttal it is quick to turn that rebuttal into one phrase: it's god, he can do anything! And following that phrase with pages upon pages of special pleading, which is a tactic I am expecting you to take. This god character has so many attributes that theists use as artillery to fire off at atheist debaters it's easy to see how you could provide arguments that would amount to a whole book.

But your arguments, aren't always correct. Not by logic, or by nature anyways. And sometimes not by the books that describe certain deities. And luckily for us we have holy books that list that god's actions in the universe and its attributes that it's easy to call specific holy books bluff. Personally speaking, I find that if a holy book is wrong about god's action in one sense then that holy book can be discarded in its entirety because I believe holy books are supposed to be inerrant. And luckily for our side the holy book of the god you propose exists is completely full of bullshit when it comes to evidence to support it, it's easy to discard your god as non-existent

But then again, go ahead. You are right, sort of. The arguments you can toss our would take up a whole book, and more! But if I were to find one of those books of arguments at the book store they would be in the 'Religious' section, and (at least in the book story I shop at) the religion section is completely separate from the Non-Fiction section.

Quote

There is something that have the basic qualities of God, therefore, God can exist. The first point is so important that it might actually be part of God. Just see... this freed particle is basically light, and it have intelligence, it is infinite, it is pretty much all powerful (understanding that such word is a mistake by itself, but it is enough to understand what it means) and it is everywhere.

If light was everywhere they why do we have darkness. Or, if god is everywhere, and god is good, why do we have evil?

It can be argued that your god gave us free will, and that it is omniscience, omnipotent,and omnipresent. If so, then this god character your support is definitely not worthy of any worship, and it's definitly not worthy of anyone trying to make a claim that it exists. If it is so perfect then it totally fucked up this universe on purpose to make its creation suffer, turn to it to try to make it better, give its creation an excuse for it not to make this world better[1], and walks away.

And if it's all powerful then it hasn't shown the best it can do. To quote George Carlin:

So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

So, yeah. I guess it can be added that this omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent god is also omni-incompetent too.

Quote

This point directly toward the existence of God, and even if we cannot say it is God, we can at least have a reasonable base to consider believing.

Well, until this god (or its fanboys) can prove it exists, then we don't have a reason for believing. It gave us no reason too consider its existence.

Personally, I am an agnostic atheist: I cannot prove god doesn't exist, but I don't believe one does. With that comes the idea that if a god does exist then it doesn't really give a shit if I do believe it exists or not. Personally, I'd rather not be bullied into believing in something where there is a more natural reason for our existence that doesn't include the mention of its name that than to believe in something blindly and without evidence.

Quote

A reasonable base for believing in what? It seemed impossible 100 years ago that such thing could be possible... something "infinite", something "eternal" something intelligent... just THINK.

But who cares in just believing. You need to specify believing in what. You need to give it a specific name. You chose the name YHWH. And honestly, this YHWH character seems to go against it's own qualities that its believers give it.

Quote

Its not an empty point for those who are open-minded. THINK: If atheism is pretty much like a religion (and you have seen my reasons to claim that), couldn't it be possible that some members of the atheist-religion are already brain-washed, and are fighting to protect their beliefs, just like any other religion, against all reason and logic?

Wow, dude. So atheism is a religion in the non-belief in a deity? That just sounds stupid. Atheists are brain-washed and are fighting to protect their own beliefs? That sounds stupid too. All atheists demand is physical evidence. Is that so hard? Let me apologize for the atheist community: Sorry our standards are set so high. Actually, wait. Demanding physical evidence is the best way to go. When demanding physical evidence at least it gives a good reason to believe in {whatever} based on our senses.

It's just wrong to believe in something blindly, because at the end you'll probably look like a fool, a smuck, and just completely wrong.